DCIT Vs Travel Designer India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Background
Travel Designer India Pvt. Ltd. filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.11.2016. The return was found defective and an intimation under section 139(9) was issued on 25.01.2017. The assessee responded on 02.02.2017. After a subsequent communication dated 10.07.2017 regarding non-acceptance of the response, it again responded through the e-portal on 19.07.2017. The return was thereafter processed under section 143(1), showing 29.11.2016 as the date of the original return. The Assessing Officer subsequently issued a scrutiny notice under section 143(2) on 11.08.2018.
Proceedings Before Gujarat High Court
The assessee challenged the notice under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that rectification under section 139(9) merely cured defects in the original return and related back to 29.11.2016. Accordingly, the last date for issuing notice under section 143(2) was 30.09.2017 and the notice dated 11.08.2018 was time-barred.
The Revenue contended that the defective return could not be regarded as a valid return until its defects were removed. According to it, 19.07.2017 was therefore the relevant date for computing limitation, making the scrutiny notice timely.
The High Court examined the distinction between a defective return under section 139(9) and a revised return under section 139(5). It held that section 139(9) does not contemplate filing a fresh return. It permits rectification of the return already filed; if the defects are cured within the permitted period, the same original return becomes valid. This differs from a revised return under section 139(5), which substitutes the original return.
